alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED April 24, 2003 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-40650 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus DARRELL JERMAINE LONG, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. L-01-CR-626-ALL

-------------------- Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Darrell Jermaine Long appeals the sentence he received following his guilty-plea conviction for transporting aliens for financial gain, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324. He challenges the district court’s denial of a U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1 reduction for acceptance of responsibility. The district court denied the § 3E1.1 reduction because, after pleading guilty and while on pretrial release in theNo. 02-40650 -2- instant case, Long pleaded guilty to fraud charges in Georgia and was sentenced to two years’ imprisonment. Long contends that this was error, urging that, pursuant to § 3E1.1 (n.1(b)), the determination whether a defendant accepted responsibility should be limited to the offense of conviction and to conduct related to the offense of conviction. Long concedes that his argument is foreclosed by our opinion in United States v. Watkins , 911 F.2d 983, 985 (5th Cir. 1990).
In Watkins , we rejected the precise argument that Long now asserts and held that the application note to § 3E1.1 was “phrased in general terms and does not specify that the defendant need only refrain from criminal conduct associated with the offense of conviction in order to qualify for the reduction.” Id. One panel of this court may not ignore or overrule a prior panel decision. See United States v. Ruiz , 180 F.3d 675, 676 (5th Cir. 1999). Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Transportation

###### Federal Aviation Administration

          - 14 CFR Part 71
          - [Docket No. FAA-2006-25008; Airspace Docket No. 06-ACE-6]

# AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

# ACTION:

 Direct final rule; confirmation of effective date.

# SUMMARY:

This document confirms the effective date of the direct final rule which revises Class E airspace at Lake Ozark, MO.

# DATES:

*Effective Date:*                         0901 UTC, November 23, 2006.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Grant Nichols, System Support, DOT Regional Headquarters Building, Federal Aviation Administration, 9011 Locust, Kansas City, MO 64106; telephone (816) 329-2522.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The FAA published this direct final rule with a request for comments in the                     **Federal                               ( print page 57413)                            Register**                     on August 8, 2006 (71 FR 44885). The FAA uses the direct final rulemaking procedure for a non-controversial rule where the FAA believes that there will be no adverse public comment. This direct final rule advised the public that no adverse comments were anticipated, and that unless a written adverse comment, or a written notice of intent to submit such an adverse comment, were received within the comment period, the regulation would become effective on November 23, 2006. No adverse comments were received, and thus this notice confirms that this direct final rule will become effective on that date.                

Issued in Fort Worth, Texas on September 12, 2006.

Donald R. Smith,

Manager, System Support Group, ATO Central Service Area.

[FR Doc. 06-8315  Filed 9-28-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
Order filed, October 16, 2018.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-18-00712-CV

____________

LEOLA JONES AND STEPHANIE ALLEN, Appellants

V.

HELEN JUNGENBERG, Appellee

On Appeal from the 344th District Court

Chambers County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. CV27264

ORDER

The reporter’s record in this case was due September 14, 2018. See Tex. R. 

App. P. 35.1. On September 25, 2018, this court ordered the court reporter to file 

the record within 15 days. The record has not been filed with the court. Because 

the reporter’s record has not been filed timely, we issue the following order.

We order the court reporter for the 344th District Court to file the record in 

this appeal within 15 days of the date of this order. No further extension will be 
entertained absent exceptional circumstances. The trial and appellate courts are 

jointly responsible for ensuring that the appellate record is timely filed. See Tex. R. 

App. P. 35.3(c). If the court reporter does not timely file the record as ordered, we 

may issue an order directing the trial court to conduct a hearing to determine the 

reason for the failure to file the record.

PER CURIAM
<PAGE>   1

EXHIBIT 10.30





                         Report of Independent Auditors


Board of Directors
OmniCare Health Plan, Inc.

We have audited the accompanying balance sheet of OmniCare Health Plan, Inc. as
of June 30, 1996, and the related statements of operations, stockholders'
equity, and cash flows for the six month period ended June 30, 1996 (not
presented separately herein). These financial statements are the responsibility
of the Company's management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on
these financial statements based on our audit.

We conducted our audit in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards.
Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable
assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material
misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting
the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. An audit also includes
assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by
management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation.
We believe that our audit provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.

In our opinion, the financial statements referred to above present fairly, in
all material respects, the financial position of OmniCare Health Plan, Inc. at
June 30, 1996, and the results of its operations and cash flows for the six
month period ended June 30, 1996 in conformity with generally accepted
accounting principles.

                                                        /s/ Ernst & Young LLP


September 2, 1996
# EUR-Lex - 12004V223 - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 12004V223

**Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe - PART III — THE POLICIES AND FUNCTIONING OF THE UNION - TITLE III — INTERNAL POLICIES AND ACTION - CHAPTER III — POLICIES IN OTHER AREAS - Section 3 — Economic, social and territorial cohesion - Article III-223 **

*
Official Journal 310 , 16/12/2004 P. 0099 - 0099 *

Article III-223

1. Without prejudice to article III-224, European laws shall define the tasks, the priority objectives and the organisation of the structural funds, which may involve grouping the Funds, the general rules applicable to them and the provisions necessary to ensure their effectiveness and the coordination of the Funds with one another and with the other existing Financial Instruments.

A Cohesion Fund set up by a European law shall provide a financial contribution to projects in the fields of environment and trans-European networks in the area of transport infrastructure.

In all cases, such European laws shall be adopted after consultation of the Committee of the Regions and the Economic and Social Committee.

2. The first provisions on the Structural Funds and the Cohesion Fund to be adopted following those in force on the date on which the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe is signed shall be established by a European law of the Council. The Council shall act unanimously after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.

--------------------------------------------------
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

December 27, 2016

No. 04

- 16

- 00643

- CR

Ervin JACKSON,

Appellant

v.

The State of TEXAS,

Appellee

From the 144th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2013CR0430W

Honorable Lorina I. Rummel, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

Kay Gittinger’s notification of late record is hereby granted. The reporter’s record is due

on or before January 13, 2017.

_________________________________ Marialyn Barnard, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 27th day of December, 2016

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 180 (Monday, September 18, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Page 54673]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-7732]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


Notice

    The National Institute on Aging and several other Institutes of the 
National Institutes of Health will hold a conference entitled 
``Conference on Alzheimer's Disease: Setting the Research Agenda a 
Century after Auguste D'' on October 26-27, 2006. The purpose of the 
conference is to discuss future directions for the NIH Alzheimer's 
disease research agenda. The focus of the conference will be on 
discussing the research issues that must be addressed in order to 
provide more efficacious diagnostics and therapeutics to patients and 
their families.
    The conference will include a series of 30 minute presentations by 
experts in covering a broad spectrum of Alzheimer's disease research. 
The speakers will provide an overview of where research in a particular 
field is now and discuss what the critical questions and issues are 
that must be addressed to move the field forward.
    Persons interested in attending the conference should register at: 
http://www.tech-res-intl.com/nia/alzheimers_conference/default.htm.
    Registration is free but seating is limited. The Web site also 
provides information about hotel accommodations.

    Dated: September 12, 2006.
Neil Buckholtz,
Chief, Dementias of Aging Branch, Neuroscience and Neuropsychology of 
Aging Program, National Institute on Aging, National Institutes of 
Health.
[FR Doc. 06-7732 Filed 9-15-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
EXHIBIT 32.1

                Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350
                       as adopted pursuant to Section 906
                        of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report of AngelCiti Entertainment, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2006 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
George Gutierrez, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

          (1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
               or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

          (2)  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
               material respects, the financial condition and results of
               operations of the Company.




Dated: November 14, 2006


                                       /s/ GEORGE GUTIERREZ
                                       -----------------------------------------
                                       George Gutierrez, Chief Executive Officer
                                       and Chief Financial Officer
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-7795

TERENCE KENNETH O'NEAL,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

T. E. MERKEL; NURSE CASHWELL; NURSE ALLEN;

NURSE DAVIS; MR. CONN,

Defendants - Appellees,

and

FRANKLIN E. FREEMAN, JR.; GARY DIXON; DOCTOR

LOWY; DOCTOR SHAW; DOCTOR CASTALLOE; HARRY

ALLSBROOK; MR. CHERRY,

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District

Judge. (CA-94-476-5-CT-H)

Submitted: October 31, 1996 Decided: November 18, 1996

Before WILLIAMS and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
2

Terence Kenneth O'Neal, Appellant Pro Se. Mark John Pletzke, NORTH

CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court's order denying relief on

his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint. We have reviewed the record

and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. O'Neal

v. Merkel, No. CA-94-476-5-CT-H (E.D.N.C. Sept. 26, 1995). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions

are adequately presented in the materials before the court and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-7105

MARVIN DOMINIC GREEN,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; SUPREME COURT OF

SOUTH CAROLINA; CHARLES CONDON, Attorney

General of the State of South Carolina,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Beaufort. Matthew J. Perry, Jr., Senior District

Judge. (CA-01-4212-8-10BC)

Submitted: September 30, 2003 Decided: October 8, 2003

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Marvin Dominic Green, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Chief

Deputy Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Marvin Dominic Green, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the

district court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s

recommendation and denying relief on his petition filed under 28

U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). An appeal may not be taken from the final

order in a § 2254 proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge

issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)

(2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his

constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive

procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or

wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, , 123 S. Ct.

1029, 1040 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000);

Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 534 U.S.

941 (2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude

that Green has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions

are adequately presented in the materials before the court and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Editorial Note on Part 660
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 660 appear at 67 FR 65906, Oct. 29, 2002, 88 FR 81358, Nov. 22, 2023.

§ 660.404 Recordkeeping and reporting. ( a ) This subpart recognizes that catch and effort data necessary for implementation of any applicable fishery management plan are collected by the States and Indian tribes of Washington, Oregon, California, and Idaho under existing data collection requirements. Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, no additional catch reports will be required of fishermen or processors so long as the data collection and reporting systems operated by State agencies and Indian tribes continue to provide NMFS with statistical information adequate for management.
( b ) Persons engaged in commercial fishing may be required to submit catch reports that are specified annually under § 660.408.
[61 FR 34600, July 2, 1996]
DENY and Opinion Filed November 22, 2021 

S 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-21-00359-CV 

IN RE JBS CARRIERS, INC., AND CONNIE THOMAS, Relators 

Original Proceeding from the 44th Judicial District Court 

Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. DC-19-09792 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before Justices Myers, Partida-Kipness, and Carlyle 

Opinion by Justice Partida-Kipness 

In this original proceeding, relators challenge the trial court’s denial of their 

special exceptions and motion for protection. Entitlement to mandamus relief 

requires relators to show that the trial court clearly abused its discretion and that they 

lack an adequate appellate remedy. In re Prudential Ins. Co., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135–

36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding). Based on our review of the petition and the 

record, we conclude that relators have failed to show their entitlement to the relief 

requested. 

 
 –2– 

 Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. 

210359F.P05 

/Robbie Partida-Kipness/ 

ROBBIE PARTIDA-KIPNESS 

JUSTICE
§ 1002.34 Disorderly conduct. ( a ) A person commits disorderly conduct when, with intent to cause public alarm, nuisance, jeopardy or violence, or knowingly or recklessly creating a risk thereof, such person commits any of the following prohibited acts: ( 1 ) Engages in fighting or threatening, or in violent behavior.
( 2 ) Uses language, an utterance, or gesture, or engages in a display or act that is obscene, physically threatening or menacing, or done in a manner that is likely to inflict injury or incite an immediate breach of the peace.
( 3 ) Makes noise that is unreasonable, considering the nature and purpose of the actor's conduct, location, time of day or night, and other factors that would govern the conduct of a reasonably prudent person under the circumstances.
( 4 ) Creates or maintains a hazardous or physically offensive condition.
( b ) The regulations contained in this section apply, regardless of land ownership, on all lands and waters within the boundaries of the area administered by the Presidio Trust that are under the legislative jurisdiction of the United States.
# EUR-Lex - 12006E009 - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 12006E009

**Treaty establishing the European Community (consolidated version) - Part One - Principles - Article 9 **

*
Official Journal C 321 E , 29/12/2006 P. 0047 - 0047 Official Journal C 325 , 24/12/2002 P. 0042 - Consolidated version Official Journal C 340 , 10/11/1997 P. 0183 - Consolidated version Official Journal C 224 , 31/08/1992 P. 0009 - Consolidated version *

Article 9

A European Investment Bank is hereby established, which shall act within the limits of the powers conferred upon it by this Treaty and the Statute annexed thereto.

--------------------------------------------------
# EUR-Lex - 12004V046 - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 12004V046

**Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe - PART I - TITLE VI — THE DEMOCRATIC LIFE OF THE UNION - Article I-46 **

*
Official Journal 310 , 16/12/2004 P. 0034 - 0034 *

Article I-46

The principle of representative democracy

1. The functioning of the Union shall be founded on representative democracy.

2. Citizens are directly represented at Union level in the European Parliament.

Member States are represented in the European Council by their Heads of State or Government and in the Council by their governments, themselves democratically accountable either to their national Parliaments, or to their citizens.

3. Every citizen shall have the right to participate in the democratic life of the Union. Decisions shall be taken as openly and as closely as possible to the citizen.

4. Political parties at European level contribute to forming European political awareness and to expressing the will of citizens of the Union.

--------------------------------------------------
###### Editorial Note on Part 660

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 660 appear at 67 FR 65906, Oct. 29, 2002, 88 FR 81358, Nov. 22, 2023.

#### § 660.311 Open access fishery—definitions.

General definitions for the Pacific Coast groundfish fisheries are defined at § 660.11, subpart C. The definitions in this subpart are specific to the open access fishery covered in this subpart and are in addition to those specified at § 660.11, subpart C.

*Closely tended* for the purposes of this subpart means that a vessel is within visual sighting distance or within 0.25 nm (463 m) of the gear as determined by electronic navigational equipment.
# EUR-Lex - 11992E056 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 11992E056

**TREATY ESTABLISHING THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITY - PART THREE: COMMUNITY POLICIES - TITLE III: FREE MOVEMENT OF PERSONS, SERVICES AND CAPITAL - CHAPTER 2: RIGHT OF ESTABLISHMENT - ARTICLE 56 /* CODIFIED VERSION OF THE TREATY ESTABLISHING THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITY */ **

*
Official Journal C 224 , 31/08/1992 P. 0022 *

Article 56

1. The provisions of this Chapter and measures taken in pursuance thereof shall not prejudice the applicability of provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action providing for special treatment for foreign nationals on grounds of public policy, public security or public health.

2. Before the end of the transitional period, the Council shall, acting unanimously on a proposal from the Commission and after consulting the European Parliament, issue directives for the coordination of the abovementioned provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action. After the end of the second stage, however, the Council shall, acting in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 189b, issue directives for the coordination of such provisions as, in each Member State, are a matter for regulation or administrative action. (15)()
Argued and submitted August 4, 1993,

affirmed May 4, 1994

#### STATE OF OREGON, *Appellant, v.*CHARLES BEAN OLIVER, *Respondent.*

(92-06-232CR, 92-06-233CR; CA A77713 (Control), A77714)

(Cases Consolidated)

873 P2d 345

Timothy A. Sylwester, Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause for appellant. With him on the brief were Theodore R. Kulongoski, Attorney General, and Virginia L. Linder, Solicitor General.

Daniel L. Cronin argued the cause and filed the brief for respondent.

Before Deits, Presiding Judge, and Richardson, Chief Judge, and Haselton, Judge.*

*

 Haselton, J., *vice*Durham, J.

PER CURIAM

Affirmed. *State v. Cookman,*127 Or App 283, 873 P2d 335 (1994).